A Contrast of Political Controversy: The Prince versus Capital It is often very difficult to judge which policies and principalities are correct when comparing and contrasting controversial literary works. In The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli presents many ideas that may be looked at as unethical by the general population of a nation. In fact, Machiavelli’s ideas were looked down upon by his own nation, Italy, resulting in his eventual exile. For Karl Marx, Capital presents many contradictions within itself. For instance, Marx’s claim that the general contradictions in Capitalism stem from the owner of a business needing to exploit human labor in order to increase profit and the general human population needing to work so that they continually make money, which can then be spent on goods where the money goes back to the firm. Furthermore, Marx argues that Capitalism is not recurring while the prior mentioned process certainly does not seem the same. However, the main points of comparison and contrast between The Prince and Capital remain between the conversations on leadership and the various reactions that mass population may have based on a leader’s actions. Machiavelli and Marx have views that both differ and agree, which will be evident through comparison and contrast of their individual views on the battle between necessity and morality. The two agree that sometimes it is more appropriate to do what is necessary rather than what is morally right. However, the difference between the two is the context in which they address the conflict; Machiavelli does so in giving advice to the leader of a nation while Marx concerns himself with the relationship between owners of production and laborers. Moreover, I intend to compare the actions of Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin with the beliefs of Marx and Machiavelli in an attempt to identify which belief system each identified with during their reign in Soviet Russia.

It is common knowledge that when ruling a nation, one is faced with extremely hard decisions; decisions that the general population could not normally be trusted to make. The fact that one could be trusted to make these decisions for the good of the nation is, of course, the main reason why a leader is placed into power. Machiavelli argues, however, that it is not necessarily the good of the nation of which he is advising on how to preserve, but rather the leader’s control of power over that nation. In other words, Machiavelli’s advice is aimed toward a leader who wants to know how to stay in power. In doing this, Machiavelli addresses the issue of necessity versus morality and maintains that a leader’s first priority should be to maintain his power over a nation. Machiavelli addresses this claim in the chapter titled, “About those factors that cause men, and especially rulers, to be praised or censured.” He states, “…a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil” (The Prince, 47). Here, Machiavelli is saying that if a leader only concerns himself with moral excellence, he will lose his power to due to “evil” outside forces. It is possible that Machiavelli’s claim implies a sense of naivety in the morally excellent leader and that those who are willing to be corrupt in order to hold on to power will seize power over the purely ethical (47). This is merely one of Machiavelli’s many analyses of the contradiction between necessity and morality.

Overall, Machiavelli argues that a leader must know when to be good and when not to be good, and that the proper balance of these elements will help insure a leader’s maintenance of power. Machiavelli states, “So it is necessary for a ruler, if he wants to hold on to power, to learn how not to be good, and to know when it is and when it is not necessary to use this knowledge” (The Prince, 48). Machiavelli is much more self-explanatory with this point than with many others,...

YOU MAY ALSO FIND THESE DOCUMENTS HELPFUL

...Lao-tzu vs. Machiavelli
Government is the essential authority of a country or state, which is directly, affects society because it provides key securities. Two of history’s greatest thinkers Lao-tzu, authors of the Tao-te Ching, and Niccolo Machiavelli, author of The Prince have similar but very contrasting ideas of government, and how people should be governed.
Lao-tzu was born in the Chinese state of Ch’u. He spent most of his life working in the library of the Chou dynasty. Once he decided to leave a gate keeper convinced him he would write down his thoughts, Thus creating the Tao-te Ching.
Lao-tzu’s view of government is the master should not have optimal power over the people. He feels as though people should be ignorant of government. A good leader will not try to impose power of his people. There is a plan already set for the universe. No human can change that, so you should not try to control your own destiny. In the end what is destined to happen will and life will be much easier if you let it do so. For example, in the Tao-te Ching Lao-tzu states, “If you want to be a great leader, / you must learn to follow the Tao./ Stop trying to control./Let go of fixed plans and concepts, / and the world will govern itself” (Verse 57). Another example holds true in line 16 verses 29 of the Tao-te Ching, “The Master sees things as they are, without trying to control them. / She lets them go their own way, / and resides at the...

...Prince, Lao-tzu and Machiavelli have sought to convey a more complete and concrete understanding of their respective definitions and duties of a ruler (leadership). The theme of political leaders and their intricate relationship with society indeed validate itself within both texts. However, both Lao-tzu and Machiavelli approach this issue from almost entirely opposite positions, though sharing minute similarities. Lao-tzu appears to focus the majority of his attention on letting problems or situations take their course, and consequently good would prevail. On the contrary, Machiavelli advocates the necessity for a successful leader, or prince, to take control of his deeds, and the skills or qualities necessary to maintain power. Since both writers propose a question as to what is in essence the same dilemma, effective leadership, it becomes almost natural literary etiquette to contrast the two in an effort to better understand what qualities a prosperous leader must possess. Despite each author’s contrasting approaches to rhetoric, they agree that a ruler should avoid being hated and despised, but disagree in areas such as government involvement in citizens’ everyday lives. In comparing Lao-tzu and Machiavelli in terms of governing standards, many may doubt that they are comparable in any aspect. Though their comparability is limited, one in particular is that one of the most important qualities a ruler should...

...Lao-tzu vs. Machiavelli
Government is the essential authority of a country or state, which directly affects society because it provides key securities. How directly involved should the government be in the personal lives of society? To answer this I will look to the ideas of Lao-tzu (sixth century B.C.), believed to be author of the Tao-te Ching, and Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527), author of The Prince There are few ways in which they are similar, but have very opposite views and ideas of government.
Lao-tzu’s view is government should not have optimal power over the people He feels as though the less people know they are being governed, the happier they will be. For example, in the Tao-te Ching Lao-tzu states, “If you want to be a great leader,/ you must learn to follow the Tao./ Stop trying to control./Let go of fixed plans and concepts,/ and the world will govern itself.” (Verse 57)
In Lao-tzu’s writing he refers to the governing body as master. If things happen as nature intends them there will be no need for the Master to make promises he cannot and does not intend to keep. For instance line 16 verse 29 of the Tao-te Ching, “The Master sees things as they are/ without trying to control them./She lets them go their own way,/ and resides at the center of the circle.” Lao-tzu takes into consideration the individuals and what they can do for themselves, not what they can do for the master. The Master completes the task at...

...Plato’s Republic and Machiavelli’s The Prince each present an “ideal” state along with a description of what an “ideal” founder of such a state would be like. The ideals of these two great men differ immensely and the foundation for these differences can be found in their distinctive views regarding human nature. Once this is assessed the picture that each man paints of their ideal ruler or founder becomes much clearer. Plato promotes the concept of philosopher-kings who rule over his imagined Utopian society, while Machiavelli endorses a ruthless and at times amoral prince whose primary objective is the preservation of the state.
Plato’s view of human nature can be seen when considering his view of the soul, which, according to him, is comprised of three distinct parts; one of reason, one of appetite, and one of spirit. One’s inclination towards a particular part of the soul determines his place in society. The spirit-dominated soul is one of courage and bravery, therefore, these people are the soldiers in Plato’s ideal society. The workers or craftsmen are those with an appetitive soul, one that yearns to fulfill only life’s basic needs. Finally, we have the souls that are inclined towards reason and these select few are those that Plato deems worthy of ruling. For Plato there is no greater goal in life than the pursuit of knowledge. An intelligent man is just and therefore fit to preside over the state for he will always have the best interests of...

...According to Marx, all political rule is class domination. Critically analyse.
Class is not simply an ideology legitimising oppression: it denotes exploitative relations between people mediated by their relations to the means of production. In Marxian and similar theories, the term ‘class’ is used as a technical term connected with a theory of ownership and control.
Political Rule is the exercise of power. According to Max Weber, Power is “the chance of man or a number of men to realize their own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the action”.
Power is one of those words that is easy to understand but hard to define in a precise manner. It is the ability to influence decisions. There are 3 primary indicators of power:
1) Who benefits?
2) Who governs?
3) Who wins?
According to Pluralist, the existence of classes, political parties, status groups, interest groups testifies to the distribution of power. Whereas for Marxist, power is distributed according to the accumulation of capital, that is economic power.
Marx believed that Western Society had developed through four main epochs:
1) Primitive Communism.
2) Ancient Society.
3) Feudal Society.
4) Capitalist Society.
Primitive Communism is the first of the Marxist epochs. It is defined by a communal characteristic that everyone would work together for the common good. In this epoch, no one had a major interest in personally owning...

...Adam Smith and Karl Marx are both respected in their views for creating a society in which it will allow for the greatest number of people to flourish under the conditions of their type of government. Adam Smith, a Scottish political economist philosopher born in 1723, had the goal of impeccable liberty for all individuals through the capitalistic approach, in which he argues that capitalism will not only create new wealth and the possibility for universal opulence and future happiness, but improves the moral fiber of an entire nation. While Karl Marx, born in 1818, believed in individual freedom for society and logically criticized capitalism giving reasons as to why it was it was an immoral and evil economic system that will ultimately be overthrown. Figuring out what kind of state will ensure the greatest freedom or liberty of individuals was their main philosophical problem. They differed in their views of human nature, the social decisions made in the society, the role of competition, and the effects of the division of labor on human beings.
In Smith’s notion of human nature, Smith suggests that it is better to be rich than to be poor, but he focused on making a decent life possible for all. He felt that a market economy was best able to improve the standard of living of the vast majority of the population; that it would lead to what Smith called universal opulence. Smith also says that with the help of new manufacturing...

...Ideas on the same topic always seem to differ from person to person. This holds true to the ideas of Machiavelli and Castiglione. The Prince, written by Machiavelli, and The Courtier, written by Castiglione, are both somewhat how-to guides for nobility, royalty, and princes. However, there are many distinct differences among the ideas of Castiglione and Machiavelli. Castiglione's philosophy leads down the path of a well-rounded person; a more peaceful manner. Machiavelli's philosophy is more straightforward and violent, where you should do anything and everything you have to do in order to achieve your goal. Both books and figures were of great importance to society.
Machiavelli's philosophy was that "The end justifies the means." This meant that the end result is the most important, and how you got there was of no importance. The Prince was a book of advice to rules on how to found a state and how to stay in power. Machiavelli explained in his book the many different ways to gain power. One way was to acquire land. The four methods that he discusses to acquire more land is: Your own arms and virtue, fortune, others' arms, and inequity. To Machiavelli, the word virtue meant manliness and strength. Machiavelli also advocates the use of evil to achieve any goals. He gives an example of Agathocles of Syracuse as a proof that this works and will enable the prince to rule the land peacefully...

...
Karl Marx and Max Weber both have strong sociological perspectives on the concept of class in
capitalist society. Each theorist uses their own method to make inferences about the social world, and
because of this, they come to very divergent conclusions. Marx and Weber both argue that an individual’s
class position is predictive of the stratification and type of conflict that arise between classes within
society. However their main point of contention exists in their definitions of class and to what extent the
capitalist mode of production is the determining factor of an individual’s class position. Marx uses his
materialist conception of history to provide the framework for his concepts. This method is defined by
looking at changes in material conditions over time to explain larger social and economic shifts.
Conversely, Weber uses Versheten or “sympathetic understanding” to outline his concepts. This method is
defined by looking at individual subjective motives for actions and to use those to extrapolate causes for
larger economic events.
According to Marx, class structure and conflict are intrinsic to capitalist society as, “the history of
all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marx, 1848, pg. 246). Using his materialist
theory of history, he demonstrates that the nature of all societies is shaped by their modes of production.
Marx (1859)...